![Lessons of the Quaternary [Debunking Global Warming]](http://media-images.nscpcdn.com/media/contrib/story/2007/01/06/story-45a01b24b0ace.jpg)
Do No Evil – One of the world's leading journals focusing on the geology, geomorphology, geography, archaeology, soil science, palaeobotany, palaeontology, and palaeoclimatology of the Quaternary Period ... titled Quaternary Science Reviews. Three articles have been published recently ... we are calling the "Lessons of the Quaternary."
FTA
The first article of interest was generated by a team of scientists from Norway, Canada, and Russia and deals with glaciers in the northern Ural Mountains of Russia. Their shocking and revealing title is 'Glaciers in the Polar Urals, Russia, were not much larger during the Last Global Glacial Maximum than today.'
"Are they kidding â;; is this some kind of spoof? Every presentation on global warming insists that glaciers are retreating the world over..."
FTA
"The plot is reconstructed sea surface temperatures from the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Guatemala for the past 32,000 years. If global warming is your thing, you really missed it â;; notice the 12°C warm-up from 15,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. We see no warming at all during the Anthropocene; we also notice how much more variable the climate was during the cold periods, not the warm ones."
FTA
"So while the climate alarmists warn us of upcoming severe droughts, the St. Jacques et al. team shows us that much bigger droughts have occurred in the past both in relatively cold and warm periods."
Well, damn, Al Gore and his disciples in the Church of Global Warming aren't going to like any of this!
I have never put much faith in experts, according to them, there are two unsinkable objects off the coast of Nfld., the Titanic and Ocean Ranger, the Exxon Valdez could never happen, and every opinion seems to be revised, sometimes 180 degs later on.
I do know I have worked outside all my life and in the winters up in the Canadian north, I have been 500 miles from the N Pole and in the last 15 years this has changed drastically, when 15 years ago we went to work in Oct. as it was cold enough now we are lucky if we can start in Jan. and instead of working till Apr. we are lucky if we get into March.
Is this global warming, a natural cycle or is it man made, who cares, there is a change going on, and there is no way in hell that any sane person can tell me that man does not have an impact.
Screw those for GW and also those against GW, lets just clean up our mess.
We've been "cleaning up our mess" for a long, long time. As for your observation, I observed winter starting in November and running right up into May. That's seven months of above average snowfall and below average temperatures.
Maybe but I am north of you, and when my rose garden starts to come up in Jan. while you are in sud zero weather, something is out of whack and I don't need a expert to tell me, as for cleaning up yes, N America is cleaning up lots, but also many companies are moving to China and India so they can have less enviro regulations, so as a planet we are still not getting ahead....oh and make sure you neg me for seeing things diff than you ok....LMAO
I neg you for being obnoxious. I noticed Earth Day in parts of Canada were snowed out. That was just last month. I seriously doubt your rose garden bloomed in January.
Well guess again, and as for being obnoxious, how by stating what I have observed...nothing obnoxious there.
But you are right I do get obnoxious at times, but usually when a fact turns into a personal slur, and you are a master at this, facts elude you but you like to think you are something you are not. Just a troll
Oh I have observed the price of oranges rise due to frost damage in Flordia, so what. what does that prove, I have seen snow in every month of the year, again so what, these are isolated situations that you try and argue as the norm.
Snow in Canada in Apr. and you make a comment about it ?????you are still dense.
The Global Warming crowd must blame everything that happens, droughts, tornadoes, floods, etc on Global Warming. In reality G W is a gigantic hoax perpetrated on people to bleed them of money. It is a revenue enhancer. There is no concensus, it is a theory, an unproven idea.
Have you purchased your carbon offsets yet? Me neither.
I don't think it's so much about bleeding people as much as it is two things: One is to make Al Gore relevant as well as a few bucks through his "carbon credits" business/scam. He thought he was going to be president, but the people voted otherwise -- mo matter what the lefties think about Florida.
The other aspect is to economically hamstring the U.S. in particular, which since has been surpassed by China as the greatest contributor of CO2. Never mind that CO2 is a natural gas with about 97 percent of it occurring through the natural order.
And never mind that Al Gore was the U.S. representative at the Kyoto Conference and nixed the idea of having the U.S. sign on. Clinton agreed and refused to sign it.
Sorry, wrong again as usual it was shrub.!!!!
abandon Kyoto climate pact
Updated Thu. Mar. 29 2001 11:04 AM ET
U.S. President George W. Bush said Thursday he would work with Germany and other U.S. allies to devise a plan that will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but effectively rejected implementing the Kyoto agreement.
The Bush administration has said Congress wouldn't ratify the agreement and Bush himself says concerns over the slowing U.S. economy are paramount.
We'll be working with Germany, we'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases, but I will not accept anything that will harm our economy and hurt our American workers, Bush said at a news conference.
Do you ever know what you are talking about? The U.S. never signed on to Kyoto...
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08022006.html
"The Clinton administration, with Gore's guidance, refused to allow the Republican controlled Senate to decide on the Kyoto Protocol for themselves. Gore advised Clinton not to send the Protocol to the Senate to be ratified."
Maybe you should stick to pretending to know about Canadian politics, because you sure don't know squat about the U.S.
"In 1997 a protocol was adopted at Kyoto under which countries formally undertook to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by specific percentages of the 1990 levels. Bill Clinton hailed the Protocol as a historic agreement and signed it in November 1998. [But President Bush from 2001 opposed it and acted to] overturn his predecessor's signature of the Protocol, reverse an election pledge to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant and revert to actions solely driven by domestic economic concerns." [General Sir Hugh Beach]
Clinton agreed and refused to sign it..those are your words lips, only they are wrong
And never mind that Al Gore was the U.S. representative at the Kyoto Conference and nixed the idea of having the U.S. sign on....and here are more wrong words by you because all you have to do is read the above.. [But President Bush from 2001 opposed it and acted to] overturn his predecessor's signature of the Protocol,
So maybe you should do some more studying EH dense one
"In reality G W is a gigantic hoax perpetrated on people to bleed them of money. It is a revenue enhancer."
What does that make the War in Iraq?
"What does that make the War in Iraq?"
It makes it absolutely nothing to do with "global warming."
a war for oil is definitely related to global climate change. But conservatives are too stuck in their little heads to own up to western civilization having had any negative consequences at all. Keep living in your dream world. And remember: The US is one of the places in the world least affected by G.C.C.
Hamy
What does Iraq have to do with this subject?
Are you so desperate to make a negative comment about Bush that you can't talk about something else?
I am just saying that if you think that the effects of harmful gasses on our planet is a conspiracy of lies to make Al Gore rich, what does that make the Iraq war which one could say is factually a conspiracy of lies that was used to make Cheney and Bush rich?
See? The same.
And I am not desperate to make negative comments about the worst president ever, I don't need to. He has done plenty to ensure that for years to come, no one will be able to top him.
And the fact that you still think he is great, is sad to tell you the truth. If you only knew what a truly great man was, I am sure that you would see the difference.
"I am just saying that if you think that the effects of harmful gasses on our planet is a conspiracy of lies to make Al Gore rich..."
No, not the same. The only person caught "profiteering" from the war was Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat.
The point you so obviously missed is the accusation that the staff of World Climate Report drew conclusions because a small portion of their funding allegedly came from oil and coal interests -- although the accuser never got the name right.
If they are going to dismiss them based on that, then Gore must be dismissed for selling "carbon credits."
Again, Iraq has nothing to do with it, and neither does Bush, no matter how much you hate the man. BTW: Buchanan, a Democrat, is considered the worst ever. A recent Harris Poll cited Bush as 10th best all-time.
LOL
A Democrat spouting the big lie that Bush lied.
And of course St. Al has spoken so all Goreabites adhere to the Inconvenient Lie.
Um...Bush DID lie. About a lot of things. That isn't an untruth.
And I am not a democrat nor have I ever been one. I like to think of myself as a man.
I vote for a person. Someone whom I think will be able to do the job without the party rhetoric and line toting. I am not a shill for anyone except myself.
"Al Gore rich, what does that make the Iraq war which one could say is factually a conspiracy of lies that was used to make Cheney and Bush rich?
See? The same."
I realize you're desperate to change the subject but ya picked a bad one here.
Bush and Cheney stated the same things about Iraq that Clinton Gore did. It's not that surprising considering both admins got there info from our CIA. And who was in charge of the CIA and who put him in charge of the CIA?
Lets see a couple of weeks ago we found out Al Gore used CGI computer generated graphics to fake Glaciers melting and this week I saw a report on the melting ice at the north pole!
The guy was say that now there is water where before at the north pole was only ice.
To bad that video shown had Penguins standing on those floating ice burgs. I whish they would have explained how Penguins, that only naturally exist at the South pole were now up in the North pole.
Or does not knowing which pole they be at explain the water that wasn't there before?
He didn't use the computer generated scene to show melting glaciers. He used that scene from The Day After Tomorrow to show what they look like now.
And I wasn't trying to change the subject. I am just tired of people who cannot see the forest for the trees. They are so concerned with being on a winning side, that they don't care what winning means.
He didn't use the computer generated scene to show melting glaciers. He used that scene from The Day After Tomorrow to show what they look like now.
And I wasn't trying to change the subject. I am just tired of people who cannot see the forest for the trees. They are so concerned with being on a winning side, that they don't care what winning means.
"He used that scene from The Day After Tomorrow to show what they look like now"
Urrrrrr What? That makes no since at all. Why would he use a FAKE to show what they look like now, why not just use a REAL picture showing what they look like now?
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."
A furor was raised when it was revealed in 2006 that, at customer expense, Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association, which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming
According to Harper's, Balling has recieved more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)
if you don't think there is tremendous money at stake for Global warming pundits here is one for you
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers...
Al Gore's next act: Planet-saving VC
The recovering politician is teaming with a legendary venture capitalist and bigtime moneyman to make over the $6 trillion global energy business.
Notice that's TRILLIONS with a T.......not a couple of hundred grand...........
"World Climate Review"
This is the "World Climate Report," not the "World Climate Review." See the difference?
I knew some bonehead would pull the entire "oil and coal shill" bs. The man is a bona fide climatologist and is citing peer-reviewed work done by others - many not even from this nation.
Too bad you didn't have anything relevant to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia . He is a former university Climatologist for Virginia , a position he held from 1980 until his resignation in 2007. His professional specialty was the influence of climate on agriculture . In interviews Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that global mean temperature has increased in recent decades, though he is widely regarded in the media as a global warming skeptic who contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and even beneficial in many cases."
Looks like he's more qualified than, say, Al Gore, who sells Carbon Credits for personal profit.
I noticed you left out this part ...
"Asked about his funding on CNN in August 2002 Michaels rejected the suggestion that industry funding influenced his work. 'Well, you know, most of my funding, the vast majority, comes from taxpayer-supported entities. I would make the argument that if funding colors research, I should be certainly biased more towards the taxpayers, of which I am one, than towards industry. But the fact of the matter is, numbers are objective,' he said."
Once again, it is more important to you to divide the country into "us" and "them" regarding this issue rather than try to find some common ground on the issue itself. You would rather attack someone who doesn't feel the same as you. Sad.
It just goes to show a perfect example of what Rove's politics have done to our nation.
You are on the same team, idiot, as the rest of us. We are all Americans. What one does, we all do.
Karl Rove? What kind of bonehead brings up Karl Rove? LOL, idiots, that's what kind ;)
Who attacked anyone? Well, you did. I guess that makes you the "idiot."
hamy - you work very hard a dividing, you are the sad one.
OK. So I guess that Cactus, Libs, Covalent and Klarissa are no longer Americans since they don't feel that we are all on the same side.
I prefer to think that as a UNITED nation, we would prevail in all of our endeavors. But as a DIVIDED nation, as we are now (more divided than during the civil war by some polls) we will surely fail as we have during this administration.
We must come together. Although without these four people who feel that they must secede.
"We must come together. Although without these four people who feel that they must secede."
What a completely moronic statement. Suddenly, people who don't agree with you are "no longer Americans." That's about as intolerant as you can get. I'm just being a "patriot" and exercising free speech based on sound science.
A nation more divided than during the Civil War?!! Seek help. You need it.... BADLY! LOL
We do not have to come together. But, we do have to talk to each other and hope that we can agree to disagree on some things and agree on others.
I am most disturbed with those who would make us a United World by taxing us and distributing it around the world in a program that makes people dependent on us. Give women birth control(voluntary) along with food, then we will see some advances.
I agree with that. I don't want to see money given away without any chance of return. But, global warming and it's effects aren't the reason we are giving money away. We have been giving money away for a long time. Actually, using the global economy is the easiest way to put restrictions on the money that we do give. Because everyone wants the environment to be better, it is easier to ask nations in need to make changes in order to get the cash.
What I don't get, is why you don't want a united country? And what a united country has to do with distributing money around the world.
Noticed several things right off in this article. One, the English usage isn't very good. Second the use of terminology such as, "shocking," "are they kidding," "alarmists," "clowns," etc. indicate that this is a blog with a substantial bias.
If nothing else the sentence: Every presentation on global warming insists that glaciers are retreating the world over, but these clowns are trying to tell us that the glaciers of the Urals are no smaller today than during the time when glaciers all over the world were at their maximum?
That sentence is clearly untrue. Many presentations on global warming have said that there is a net decrease in glaciers, but I haven't seen any that "insists" every glacier is retreating.
This is clearly not a peer reviewed journal. If you wanted to present an article from a peer reviewed journal and discuss the implications, I'd be more than happy to join you in a civil discussion.
The articles to which they refer were in peer-reviewed journals. The English is fine. Perhaps it's the techical terminology that confuses you.
I find it funny when the Church of Global Warming advocates whine about "peer-reviewed" research, which this discusses, yet never provide any themselves.
The authors are bona fide climatologists and university professors with decades of experience who think the anthropogenic global warming hype is a bunch of BS. It will shock you, but many share that same opinion.
Nice try, but no go.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
getbackerzoo
popperous
hatukabu
rylandl831968
ivanphilip
Dicax_Maximus
slashup67
harleyb761960
ssusak
MichaelRhodente
tkeeley
NoSpinDave
kukuya
pc25
livia1954
tbkennedy53
xorabotta
shawnmartinez1960
mekhifranks1975
rifftags
hettiesumes
MyWayOnNow
genestiogos
neharocks
goran72
nowsourcing
ChristineSm
Nixie
bizexpert
ronron
funaskamits
dtowns67
hurr1
elisasigos
61)
Oh my, stable glaciers.
this site: http://www.worldclimatereport.com
is run by these three people:
Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels
Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis
Administrator: Paul C. Knappenberger
All three of whom were a part of the ICEE, an organization funded by Exxon. The three of them have been in many other organizations, too long to list here, which have all been funded by oil firms.
Would people who work for oil companies deceive us?